Voting twice in a way that Planned Parenthood likes twice shows “loyalty,” okay… certainly it can’t mean he just agrees on those specific issues.

If you want to talk obtuse, keep acting like you don’t understand that at the point of potential endorsement, NEITHER Mello NOR Ossoff had made any public statements about reversal of the sub-progressive (or regressive, in Mello’s case) aspects of their record. Mello gave his statement around the time that Sanders was doubling down, and Sanders gave no indication that that was an issue when endorsing Mello, but was reserved with Ossoff. There’s no need for this backbending; it’s not convincing.

And you might want to read the whole thing I put in about timing and messaging. If Tim Kaine had been announced as running mate at the exact time as he erected his “firewall,” then you could talk, but his nomination would have been fucking disastrous instead of just awkward of that had been the case.

Between the mental gymnastics to get around the obvious, your attempt to disguise them as you being “moscharacterized” and your widely varying standards of proof for your position vs. against it (making pro-choice political statements and making statements criticizing Sanders are not, I guess, equal in weight) I’d agree that we’re done.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.